Sam Keller v. EA Sports

[Saunders]

I am probably being totally naive here, but hasn't this been going on since the development of NCAA '11? And EA hasn't changed anything about the way they made the game, so I don't think they're too scared. Probably totally wrong, just a thought.

 

Also, couldn't EA just take out the likenesses and make the downloable roster easier to find? I don't play NCAA so I'm not totally familiar with how it works (or whether there is affiliation between those DLable rosters and EA?), but I don't see EA getting the short end of the stick.

 

Bash away

 

Contrary to what the majority of people who don't play the games think, all of the the digital players are just plain wrong. You won't find a single one that even remotely resembles a real player. Why? Because there's about 2 dozen facial models that cover the entirety of the players.

 

The people who actually make roster files that resemble the respective teams are the fans, and they share it with others online. If the greedy bastards want to sue the fans (which they can't, it's completely legal to create players the resemble real life ones), then go for it, and let me know how it goes.

[walksalone]

You can tell it's over two months until the spring game.... over

[Saunders]

You can tell it's over two months until the spring game.... over

 

Iknowright?

 

Lol.... this is going to be an excruciatingly long offseason.

[walksalone]

You can tell it's over two months until the spring game.... over

 

Iknowright?

 

Lol.... this is going to be an excruciatingly long offseason.

 

Roger that ghostrider, roger that

[carlfense]

I don't see this as the apocalyptic event (assuming the plaintiffs win) that is being alleged. I see two outcomes:

 

1. The key here is the unauthorized use of the likeness. That's easily remedied by amending the grant-in-aid contract (which, after all, it is) to include a specific provision that in accepting the aid the student-athlete forfeits any right of remuneration from any entity to whom the NCAA or the institution contracts their images. Will that lead some student-athletes to forego a grant-in-aid? Highly unlikely. But if there are any, it'll be damn few. The vast majority (and I'd peg that at, conservatively, 99%) will sign anyway.

 

2. That a percentage of profits (note the word profits) will be placed in some kind of escrow account - or even better, some kind of fund for medical care or post-eligibility academic support. Again, this would be accomplished by amending the wording of the grant-in-aid contract.

 

Could the current plaintiffs get a windfall here? Possibly - I don't know if signing a letter-of-intent or related document at this point in time is a waiver of any kind of right. I suspect not, or this case would have ended by summary judgment. So, yes, the plaintiffs may get some money out of this - but I don't see it benefiting, say, next year's signing class or classes thereafter.

Exactly. I don't see the video game suit being a slippery slope to any publication of the athlete's likeness.

[carlfense]

I think the point is that if you're basing your dislike of this lawsuit on your personal dislike for Sam Keller, then you're missing the point. Whether you like Sam Keller or not is irrelevant to this case.

 

First of all... "IMO...This is no different then slipping in a parking lot or spilling coffee on yourself." uh...what?

 

I think you're both missing my point. It really has nothing to do with Sam Keller. I am basing my dislike of this lawsuit on the fact it is another person looking to get paid. I wish that people could understand that lawsuits like this only cost consumers.

 

The loss that a company incurs for some moron spilling coffee on them self, or someone falling in the parking lot translates into one thing....higher prices for the consumer. Another ridiculous lawsuit payout that needs to be funded somehow. No different then what EA would have to do.

Ah. You sound like someone who gleans all of their knowledge of the legal system from a few headlines. I'd guess that you think that tort reform would fix U.S. medicine as well?

[carlfense]

Sam Keller is a conservative. Oops.

[Saunders]

I don't see this as the apocalyptic event (assuming the plaintiffs win) that is being alleged. I see two outcomes:

 

1. The key here is the unauthorized use of the likeness. That's easily remedied by amending the grant-in-aid contract (which, after all, it is) to include a specific provision that in accepting the aid the student-athlete forfeits any right of remuneration from any entity to whom the NCAA or the institution contracts their images. Will that lead some student-athletes to forego a grant-in-aid? Highly unlikely. But if there are any, it'll be damn few. The vast majority (and I'd peg that at, conservatively, 99%) will sign anyway.

 

2. That a percentage of profits (note the word profits) will be placed in some kind of escrow account - or even better, some kind of fund for medical care or post-eligibility academic support. Again, this would be accomplished by amending the wording of the grant-in-aid contract.

 

Could the current plaintiffs get a windfall here? Possibly - I don't know if signing a letter-of-intent or related document at this point in time is a waiver of any kind of right. I suspect not, or this case would have ended by summary judgment. So, yes, the plaintiffs may get some money out of this - but I don't see it benefiting, say, next year's signing class or classes thereafter.

Exactly. I don't see the video game suit being a slippery slope to any publication of the athlete's likeness.

 

And that's where you would be incorrect. If you can sue a company and file a class action suit for a supposed digital likeness that looks nothing like a the real person, then what do you think is going to happen when someone goes after the billions of dollars made from televising games that show the actual person?

[Saunders]

Sam Keller is a conservative. Oops.

Uh, where does it say that?

[Pedro Guerrero]

Ed O’Bannon if I’m not mistaken saved and was responsible with a lot of the money he made playing pro basketball so I believe he is alright financially. He also took the job as a car salesman because if he didn’t do something he was going to lose his family (he started drinking to make up for the loss of basketball).

 

Oscar Robertson is one of the 10 greatest basketball players of all time and he has put his name on this lawsuit as well. Does that throw out the stupid “this is what happens when players don’t make it professionally” argument?

 

People’s panties are in a bunch for two reasons:

 

1. It is Sam Keller and they dislike Same Keller

B. They play the games and are scared that the games will be taken away

[Saunders]

Ed O’Bannon if I’m not mistaken saved and was responsible with a lot of the money he made playing pro basketball so I believe he is alright financially. He also took the job as a car salesman because if he didn’t do something he was going to lose his family (he started drinking to make up for the loss of basketball).

 

Oscar Robertson is one of the 10 greatest basketball players of all time and he has put his name on this lawsuit as well. Does that throw out the stupid “this is what happens when players don’t make it professionally” argument?

 

People’s panties are in a bunch for two reasons:

 

1. It is Sam Keller and they dislike Same Keller

B. They play the games and are scared that the games will be taken away

 

3. They aren't burying their head in the sand, and they actually realize that this is so much larger than a "video game." I've had conversations will people heavily involved in college athletics, and in sports media, and make no mistake, this is a very big deal.

[carlfense]

Sam Keller is a conservative. Oops.

Uh, where does it say that?

He says it himself. Facebook friends from back when we were partners in Spanish class.

 

His profile is linked above.

[carlfense]

I don't see this as the apocalyptic event (assuming the plaintiffs win) that is being alleged. I see two outcomes:

 

1. The key here is the unauthorized use of the likeness. That's easily remedied by amending the grant-in-aid contract (which, after all, it is) to include a specific provision that in accepting the aid the student-athlete forfeits any right of remuneration from any entity to whom the NCAA or the institution contracts their images. Will that lead some student-athletes to forego a grant-in-aid? Highly unlikely. But if there are any, it'll be damn few. The vast majority (and I'd peg that at, conservatively, 99%) will sign anyway.

 

2. That a percentage of profits (note the word profits) will be placed in some kind of escrow account - or even better, some kind of fund for medical care or post-eligibility academic support. Again, this would be accomplished by amending the wording of the grant-in-aid contract.

 

Could the current plaintiffs get a windfall here? Possibly - I don't know if signing a letter-of-intent or related document at this point in time is a waiver of any kind of right. I suspect not, or this case would have ended by summary judgment. So, yes, the plaintiffs may get some money out of this - but I don't see it benefiting, say, next year's signing class or classes thereafter.

Exactly. I don't see the video game suit being a slippery slope to any publication of the athlete's likeness.

 

And that's where you would be incorrect. If you can sue a company and file a class action suit for a supposed digital likeness that looks nothing like a the real person, then what do you think is going to happen when someone goes after the billions of dollars made from televising games that show the actual person?

The law is not as transitive as you assume.

[Saunders]

Sam Keller is a conservative. Oops.

Uh, where does it say that?

He says it himself. Facebook friends from back when we were partners in Spanish class.

 

His profile is linked above.

Ok. I'm not a facebook fan, and you linked to a generic profile page.

[Saunders]

I don't see this as the apocalyptic event (assuming the plaintiffs win) that is being alleged. I see two outcomes:

 

1. The key here is the unauthorized use of the likeness. That's easily remedied by amending the grant-in-aid contract (which, after all, it is) to include a specific provision that in accepting the aid the student-athlete forfeits any right of remuneration from any entity to whom the NCAA or the institution contracts their images. Will that lead some student-athletes to forego a grant-in-aid? Highly unlikely. But if there are any, it'll be damn few. The vast majority (and I'd peg that at, conservatively, 99%) will sign anyway.

 

2. That a percentage of profits (note the word profits) will be placed in some kind of escrow account - or even better, some kind of fund for medical care or post-eligibility academic support. Again, this would be accomplished by amending the wording of the grant-in-aid contract.

 

Could the current plaintiffs get a windfall here? Possibly - I don't know if signing a letter-of-intent or related document at this point in time is a waiver of any kind of right. I suspect not, or this case would have ended by summary judgment. So, yes, the plaintiffs may get some money out of this - but I don't see it benefiting, say, next year's signing class or classes thereafter.

Exactly. I don't see the video game suit being a slippery slope to any publication of the athlete's likeness.

 

And that's where you would be incorrect. If you can sue a company and file a class action suit for a supposed digital likeness that looks nothing like a the real person, then what do you think is going to happen when someone goes after the billions of dollars made from televising games that show the actual person?

The law is not as transitive as you assume.

 

I'm not assuming anything. I'm going by info told to me by someone who works for sports media, and someone heavily who is involved in college athletics.